RN Trident failure
Thread Starter
RN Trident failure
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68355395The test firing of a Trident missile from a Royal Navy submarine has failed, for the second time in a row.
The latest test was carried out from HMS Vanguard off the east coast of the United States. The missile's booster rockets failed and it landed in the sea close to the launch site, according to the Sun, which first reported the malfunction. When on patrol the missiles would usually be armed with a nuclear warhead but they are not fitted for test fires.
This is highly embarrassing for both the UK and the US manufacturer of the Trident missile. British tests of Trident missiles are rare, not least because of the costs. The price tag of each missile is around £17m. Both the Defence Secretary Grant Shapps and the head of the Navy were on board HMS Vanguard when it fired the unarmed test missile in January.
It was supposed to have flown several thousand miles before landing harmlessly in the Atlantic between Brazil and West Africa. Instead the missile dropped into the ocean near to where it was launched. The previous test from a UK submarine in 2016 also ended in failure, when the missile veered off course. At the time, the Sunday Times reported that the test fire was launched from HMS Vengeance off the coast of Florida.
The paper said the Trident II D5 missile was intended to be fired 5,600 miles (9,012 km) to a sea target off the west coast of Africa but veered towards the US.
The cause of what went wrong remains top secret, the paper reported, but quoted a senior naval source as saying the missile suffered an in-flight malfunction after launching out of the water.
In a statement the Ministry of Defence admitted an anomaly had occurred in the most recent launch. But it also said that HMS Vanguard and its crew had been "proven fully capable" in their operations and the test had "reaffirmed the effectiveness of the UK's nuclear deterrent". The statement added that Trident was the "most reliable weapons system in the world" having completed more than 190 successful tests.
The latest test was carried out from HMS Vanguard off the east coast of the United States. The missile's booster rockets failed and it landed in the sea close to the launch site, according to the Sun, which first reported the malfunction. When on patrol the missiles would usually be armed with a nuclear warhead but they are not fitted for test fires.
This is highly embarrassing for both the UK and the US manufacturer of the Trident missile. British tests of Trident missiles are rare, not least because of the costs. The price tag of each missile is around £17m. Both the Defence Secretary Grant Shapps and the head of the Navy were on board HMS Vanguard when it fired the unarmed test missile in January.
It was supposed to have flown several thousand miles before landing harmlessly in the Atlantic between Brazil and West Africa. Instead the missile dropped into the ocean near to where it was launched. The previous test from a UK submarine in 2016 also ended in failure, when the missile veered off course. At the time, the Sunday Times reported that the test fire was launched from HMS Vengeance off the coast of Florida.
The paper said the Trident II D5 missile was intended to be fired 5,600 miles (9,012 km) to a sea target off the west coast of Africa but veered towards the US.
The cause of what went wrong remains top secret, the paper reported, but quoted a senior naval source as saying the missile suffered an in-flight malfunction after launching out of the water.
In a statement the Ministry of Defence admitted an anomaly had occurred in the most recent launch. But it also said that HMS Vanguard and its crew had been "proven fully capable" in their operations and the test had "reaffirmed the effectiveness of the UK's nuclear deterrent". The statement added that Trident was the "most reliable weapons system in the world" having completed more than 190 successful tests.
Top Answer
21st Feb 2024, 17:45
When asked to confirm that the test had involved a dummy, the MoD stated that Grant Shapps had indeed been on board.
(credit: HIGNFY)
(credit: HIGNFY)
The following 2 users liked this post by typerated:
"Beadwindow"?
That's just SO 1980's! Get with the program, we wash all our dirty linen in public these days. Also, best you tell the BBC, who currently have it as a lead story.
No doubt it will also be discussed in the Houses of Parliament soon.
That's just SO 1980's! Get with the program, we wash all our dirty linen in public these days. Also, best you tell the BBC, who currently have it as a lead story.
No doubt it will also be discussed in the Houses of Parliament soon.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Three points to make here.
1. This was a DASO test for HMS Vanguard which tests the onboard procedures for lunching a missile, it passed. The test concluded the moment cleared the missile tube. Vanguard is now qualified and will rejoin the patrol schedule as planned.
2. This was an American telemetry missile, no different from any of those used in any other test firing of which there have been dozens, this is not a generic fault and should not generate alarm about the missile in general, certainly not the operation missiles on patrol.
3. What is known of the investigation* into the previous failure indicates it was a telemetry issue which automatically terminated the test by preventing the booster ignition. Where the telemetry problem occurred will undoubtedly not be released, but a second occurrence, if related, will probably mean changes to test equipment and/or procedures - but not related to the operations of the deterrent itself.
* https://committees.parliament.uk/ora...nce/6604/html/
Q20 Douglas Chapman: Can I ask a very quick question about Vengeance? Sir Michael Fallon made it clear yesterday that it was back in operation and had been certified and so on. Where a problem exists, such as misfiring or the issue we had with this particular launch, how can that be certified as being okay in terms of its ability to do the job it is required to do if there had been a failure in the test? Who would tick the box and sign that off? Does it go as far as the Prime Minister, or is it at a more naval end?
Lord West: Well, it would never be the team on their own. Basically, the submarine was put in the right position. It was in the right mode. Everything was done correctly, with all the right firing checks. Everything was done internally and the missile was fired. It fired properly and went up in the air, so that was a correct firing. You know that you will fire a missile properly. From everything that has been said, it sounds as though there was an issue with telemetry within that missile. If you are not 100% certain, you do not even take a risk. It sounds as though they were not 100% certain of some of the telemetry and therefore took it down. That is the missile itself. That is an American issue.
1. This was a DASO test for HMS Vanguard which tests the onboard procedures for lunching a missile, it passed. The test concluded the moment cleared the missile tube. Vanguard is now qualified and will rejoin the patrol schedule as planned.
2. This was an American telemetry missile, no different from any of those used in any other test firing of which there have been dozens, this is not a generic fault and should not generate alarm about the missile in general, certainly not the operation missiles on patrol.
3. What is known of the investigation* into the previous failure indicates it was a telemetry issue which automatically terminated the test by preventing the booster ignition. Where the telemetry problem occurred will undoubtedly not be released, but a second occurrence, if related, will probably mean changes to test equipment and/or procedures - but not related to the operations of the deterrent itself.
* https://committees.parliament.uk/ora...nce/6604/html/
Q20 Douglas Chapman: Can I ask a very quick question about Vengeance? Sir Michael Fallon made it clear yesterday that it was back in operation and had been certified and so on. Where a problem exists, such as misfiring or the issue we had with this particular launch, how can that be certified as being okay in terms of its ability to do the job it is required to do if there had been a failure in the test? Who would tick the box and sign that off? Does it go as far as the Prime Minister, or is it at a more naval end?
Lord West: Well, it would never be the team on their own. Basically, the submarine was put in the right position. It was in the right mode. Everything was done correctly, with all the right firing checks. Everything was done internally and the missile was fired. It fired properly and went up in the air, so that was a correct firing. You know that you will fire a missile properly. From everything that has been said, it sounds as though there was an issue with telemetry within that missile. If you are not 100% certain, you do not even take a risk. It sounds as though they were not 100% certain of some of the telemetry and therefore took it down. That is the missile itself. That is an American issue.
The following 4 users liked this post by ORAC:
The following 4 users liked this post by Procrastinus:
Nevertheless our sole nuclear deterrent has failed the last twice that it was tested.
Some deterrent…
Some deterrent…
The following 4 users liked this post by pr00ne:
Exactly ORAC. Reported correctly on the BBC Radio4 'Today' news broadcast this morning. The test proved correct operation of the system with the 'anomally' caused by eroneous telemetry resulting in a correct fail-safe termination.
No doubt the anti-nuclear deterrent brigade ^^, political opposition parties, Kremlin, PRC et.al. will push the 'embarrassing failure' and 'useless waste of taxpayers money' narrative.
Yet more slaps on Putin's collective SMO success back.
No doubt the anti-nuclear deterrent brigade ^^, political opposition parties, Kremlin, PRC et.al. will push the 'embarrassing failure' and 'useless waste of taxpayers money' narrative.
Yet more slaps on Putin's collective SMO success back.
If our nuclear deterrent were ever used in anger then it would be "American" missiles that would be fired.
While the technicalities of the missiles performance might well be an American responsibility, the ultimmate success or failure of the mission is very much a UK concern.
If the telemetry in a test missile fails, it raises the inevitable questions about the reliability of the components of a war shot missile (yes, I know war shot missiles aren't fitted with test telemetry).
While the technicalities of the missiles performance might well be an American responsibility, the ultimmate success or failure of the mission is very much a UK concern.
If the telemetry in a test missile fails, it raises the inevitable questions about the reliability of the components of a war shot missile (yes, I know war shot missiles aren't fitted with test telemetry).
I don't find 2 failed tests reassuring at all, no matter how many excuses they can throw at it.
The events of the last 2 years have highlighted the importance of the Nuclear deterrent to our safety and has proven we were absolutely right to see off the CND/Greenham Common lot when they sought to leave us defenceless...much to Putin's disappointment.
The events of the last 2 years have highlighted the importance of the Nuclear deterrent to our safety and has proven we were absolutely right to see off the CND/Greenham Common lot when they sought to leave us defenceless...much to Putin's disappointment.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
There have been 192 test firings of the D5, which are drawn from a common pool of missiles, of which 10 are acknowledged as having failed. Several of these have been terminated due to telemetry issues for safety reasons. That’s about a 95% success rate.
I think knowing we have a boat at sea with between 8-12 missiles with a 95%+ success rate counts as a deterrent.
Reference the difference between firing a DASO telemetry round and an operational round, the photo below is of Vanguard with the DASO telemetry mast for a test firing. If there is an issue it’s probably related to either the hardware or software interface between the test equipment, missile, sub and shore flight termination system than the missile itself.
I think knowing we have a boat at sea with between 8-12 missiles with a 95%+ success rate counts as a deterrent.
Reference the difference between firing a DASO telemetry round and an operational round, the photo below is of Vanguard with the DASO telemetry mast for a test firing. If there is an issue it’s probably related to either the hardware or software interface between the test equipment, missile, sub and shore flight termination system than the missile itself.
If we can't even successfully fire telemetry rounds, it points to deeper issues and lowers my confidence that we're capable of vaporising Moscow or Beijing from thousands of miles away.
That said, I still think there is a deterrent, as the Russians and Chinese can never be quite sure whether at least one will work!
Something needs fixing, perhaps divert funding from the carriers?
That said, I still think there is a deterrent, as the Russians and Chinese can never be quite sure whether at least one will work!
Something needs fixing, perhaps divert funding from the carriers?
There have been 192 test firings of the D5, which are drawn from a common pool of missiles, of which 10 are acknowledged as having failed. Several of these have been terminated due to telemetry issues for safety reasons. That’s about a 95% success rate.
I think knowing we have a boat at sea with between 8-12 missiles with a 95%+ success rate counts as a deterrent.
Reference the difference between firing a DASO telemetry round and an operational round, the photo below is of Vanguard with the DASO telemetry mast for a test firing. If there is an issue it’s probably related to either the hardware or software interface between the test equipment, missile, sub and shore flight termination system than the missile itself.
I think knowing we have a boat at sea with between 8-12 missiles with a 95%+ success rate counts as a deterrent.
Reference the difference between firing a DASO telemetry round and an operational round, the photo below is of Vanguard with the DASO telemetry mast for a test firing. If there is an issue it’s probably related to either the hardware or software interface between the test equipment, missile, sub and shore flight termination system than the missile itself.
The following 6 users liked this post by superplum:
Low average, I wonder if they actually care? The way Russia has thrown its troops into human wave attacks would they would give a hoot about the civilian population being vaporised. After all the leaders must have billions stashed away and will be the seed population for the new Russia.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,973
Received 2,870 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
They don't call it a Trident for nothing you know, third time lucky.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,973
Received 2,870 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
Low average, I wonder if they actually care? The way Russia has thrown its troops into human wave attacks would they would give a hoot about the civilian population being vaporised. After all the leaders must have billions stashed away and will be the seed population for the new Russia.
Those billions post WW3 will just be good for one thing, toilet paper.
The following 3 users liked this post by NutLoose:
Well I know it will be a very long time before Natasha and Svetlana get a shopping trip to Paris or Genady will be able to leave the yacht and ponce about the prom in Nice but I once read that the Russians were very patient and were prepared to gradually grind the West down. Perhaps they will have to wait for several half lives?
The following users liked this post:
Definitely a warranty issue. In the post-apocalyptic armageddon, however, not sure where we should send any additional claims; Lockheed Martin being a smoking crater in what used to be California.
Surely better to have a failure in Test mode, and let Moscow etc know we are still have a active system? however what benefit to having the Dec Sec on board, unless a cunning plan to say we need more money?